It does sound like a bit of an overreach, and I'm not sure how enforceable their contract really was, but the language was unambiguous and unsanctioned contributions to open source projects were definitely out of the question.
(I'm currently working at a startup, they don't have this problem/ contributions to OSS are encouraged, I just have too much work to do already :D )
F that, no way in hell I'd sign that contract, for any amount of money.
It's legalese for "you are just a cog in the machine and there is no 'you'. Sign here please".
I'm by no mean advocating that one should ignore the contracts, but I do think you need to look at the larger picture... sometimes it just is overzealous lawyers and not necessarily a bad company to work for.
You just need to know when to quit
I understand the first statement/feeling, and my reply was meant to say that it might be ok to take the risk that "you are just a cog in the machine". As for the latter statement, not sure where you got that one from, there was nothing in the contract that suggested it (and there was nothing evil in the job that I was originally hired for, either - it was code intelligence (code hinting) for PHP).
They probably believe people should feel honored to work for them for free, but paying you less than fair market salary and taking away all your hobbies is the most they can get.
This is usually a problem for lower paid jobs, not for developers.
Hiring a good developer is hard, hiring a good cleaner is simple.
I might be wrong but I don't think this kind of thing would work (legally speaking) in the EU.
The general position under English law is that IP rights created by an employee within the course of employment automatically belong to the employer; where there is any doubt as to whether an employee or their employer owns IP rights, the relevant legislation largely favours employers."
It's been that way for decades, while the UK was in EU.
I had to get it written into an employment contract that Open Source activity outside of work was my own.
The idea behind this is that your employer pays not just for your time, but also for the skills you acquire during your work. Therefore, the output of those skills has at least partial ownership. There's a huge gray area which contains liabilities and opportunities for both sides, which is why most companies insist on signing off on personal projects. The alternative is fighting it out in front of a judge, should it ever come to that.
I heard a story of someone who had this permission revoked because they worked weekends as a DJ in Berlin, and would often take sick days/turn up late on Mondays to deal with the hangover.
Also it is legally enforceable as in it can be considered a valid and completely legal exception to usual termination protection.
It should be if consideration is provided.
I do think there's an argument to be made whether the base salary counts as consideration for things outside of the defined working hours though.
I think it’s an IP thing, they view it as their IP the employee is contributing so it should be in their name.
This was ~20 years ago but it seems not much has changed.
If you are going to pay the going hourly rate for 168 hours a week, yeah maybe there's something.
But if you only pay for 40 hours a week, that's what you get: not a single minute outside of that. And especially not something the person did or invented at home.
We read them, one of two situations occurs:
1. We don't care and sign it.
2. We raise a stink about it and either they change it or we don't take the job.
My current employer had the clause because it was standard boilerplate contract, but when I expressed my concerns over it and told them I wouldn't sign with it, they amended the contract to make sure nothing in it would impede my own projects and company.
Now on my 1-on-1 my CEO often asks me how my side business is doing and gives me advice as needed about building a business.
> It's pretty common in the US industry to have these type of IP clauses.
Your "employee handbook" likely mentions not causing damage to the company brand or taking any action detrimental to the company even in your personal time.